My blog comments on current events or policy issues, mainly in the fields of education, politics, economics, and religion. It alternates Saturdays with my fortnightly column in the Las Cruces Sun-News.

Saturday, January 4, 2014

FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIAN AND REFORM JEW: AN EXCHANGE ABOUT CHRISTMAS

People of
different faiths can have agreeable but serious discussions of religion and
mutually benefit from them, although disagreements remain.My wife, a devout Episcopalian, and I, a
committed Reform Jew, frequently discuss religious topics as matters of history
and theology, about which we read and know a good deal, and are willing to
learn more.Our discussions help us enrich
or refine, even reform, our understanding, with respect for the other’s views
and love for the other person.

Such discussions are rare.So-called, they are usually point-counterpoint
exchanges.In most, participants rarely
know each other well enough to talk frankly yet comfortably about religious
subjects without becoming defensive.In
some, one or both participants are dogmatic about their beliefs and become
offensive.Such exchanges, though they
may be revealing, are unproductive; no one benefits.At their best, they end without having degenerated
into pejorative remarks, personal attacks, and bad or hurt feelings.

A joint appearance by Neal Hooks and me, fortnightly
columnists for the local daily, on the radio program “Speak Up, Las Cruces,”
moderated by Peter Goodman and Keith Whelpley, was a mix of friendliness and
frankness.Hooks calls himself an
“outspoken Christian” and is, I assume, a fundamentalist, perhaps a “born
again,” Christian.Though a committed
Jew, I never learned Hebrew or had a Bar Mitzvah, and am non-observant and unaffiliated.These facts may mean that we are not
representative of our faiths.

Our subject two days before the holiday was Christmas,
its meaning and importance.Immediately,
we were off on a romp about the historicity and the ensuing interpretations of
sacred texts, Holy Scriptures (Jewish) or the Old Testament (Christian), and
the New Testament, especially the Gospels, the only canonical texts on Jesus in
history.The main issue was the nature
of Gospel accounts of Jesus words and deeds: factual or fictional.

Christians and Jews have different bibles and view
them differently.Many Christians value
the Gospel narratives as historical truths necessarily foundational for their
faith.For them, the account of Jesus’
birth signifies the historical fulfillment of Jewish prophecy in Isaiah.Jews value the narratives in Holy Scriptures,
not for historical facts, but for moral guidance.For them, the nativity story is a fabrication
which defines Jesus as a messiah contrary to the Jewish concept of the messiah.I value the Christmas story for its message
about the humble origins of a man who taught a message of care for the poor,
the hungry, the sick, and the vulnerable.Hooks disparaged such moral guidance as man-made and implicitly praised
the Gospels’ story as God’s truths.The
unresolved issue: how Protestant and Catholic fundamentalists, and diverse
Christian non-fundamentalists and Jews, regard sacred texts.

That issue re-phrased: whether and to what degree the
Gospels are factual accounts or faith-motivated stories.Hooks believes that two Gospel writers, John
and Matthew, were Apostles and that all four wrote within a few decades of the
Crucifixion.Most Christian scholars believe
that all four wrote 40 to 90 years later, lived in the Diaspora outside
Palestine, and were more Hellenic than Hebraic in their cultural mentation.

Anyone can see the importance of this difference of
opinion.If fundamentalist writers are
right, they have strong grounds for arguing that the words and deeds attributed
to Jesus in the Gospels are actually his and historically true; otherwise, if
non-fundamentalist scholars are right, we cannot take the Gospel accounts at
face value.

Hooks urges “reasonable dialogue” to decide the issue,
and I accept that standard.But we hold
opposing views of what “reasonable dialogue” is and means.For him, it is the “outspoken Christian[’s]”
faith-shaped answers to non-believers’ questions; for me, it is the back and
forth of fact and logic in dialogue attempting to discern or establish better-founded
conclusions.Indeed, “reasonable
dialogue” is not possible when one side is uncompromising and expects the other
side to compromise.One side, in the
Catholic phrase, believes in order to know; conclusions shape evidence and
argument.The other side knows in order
to believe; evidence and argument precede conclusions.Most people would accept “reasonable
dialogue” as a standard, not of religious belief only, but of traditional rhetoric:
not only the content, but also the personal and ethical character of the
speaker/writer and his or her attitude toward, or opinion of, the
audience/reader.

Fundamentalists believe that the Bible, including the
New Testament and particularly the Gospels, is the literal word of God,
divinely inspired, sanctioned, perhaps dictated; inherently authoritative; and
thus exempt from the ordinary analytical approaches and methods of historical
and textual scholarship.Conclusions of
faith explore the text for the evidence of their faith-based arguments.A sure sign of this prejudicial reading of
the text is the use of proof-texts, that is, direct quotations wrenched from
context and used to support whatever point needs proof.

Non-fundamentalists believe that the Bible, though
important to faith, is a document written by and for people and amenable to the
tools of scholarship.As much as
possible, religious scholars discount their religious convictions to describe,
analyze, and evaluate the text.Their
conclusions express themselves, not as certainties, but as probabilities, about
what the text means and implies.Proof-texts
are non-existent, because scholars accept no statement in the Gospels as exempt
from scrutiny and reinterpretation.

So far, so good.But from this point on, the exchanges changed in character.Ours were respectful for the most part, even
cordial, but probing throughout.My
responses to Hooks’s points were challenging counter-points on textual,
historical, or rhetorical grounds.As
the program proceeded, most callers and both moderators also challenged or
criticized Hooks’s views.Outnumbered,
Hooks, an earnest, energetic believer, became increasingly steadfast in
asserting his beliefs with proof-texts and defending his motives with protestations
of “compassion” for those who do not believe as he does.At about this point, the program ended, I
gave Hooks my card, but we have not talked since.

Hooks seemed frustrated that his sincere assertions
and heartfelt protestations satisfied so few.If so, he should not have been.Non-believers
expect and reject such rhetoric from fundamentalists who presume to know what others
should know.The sectarian faithful use
it to confirm or celebrate religious dogma and to proselytize and convert
non-believers.Though it works for
“insiders,” it rarely works for “outsiders.”

It rarely works for “outsiders” because fundamentalists’
rhetoric is self-defeating.“Insiders”
adopt a posture of moral self-righteousness and religious certitude because
they presume to possess all truth, absolute and unyielding, and that others need
to acknowledge and accept it.“Outsiders”
usually resent, resist, and repudiate “insiders’” patronizing posture and presumptions
which disrespect them and demean their religious beliefs.Fundamentalists’ rhetoric fails when it
attempts to change the minds of non-believers by implicitly insulting them and
their faiths.

Fundamentalist rhetoric begins and ends with
misunderstanding, denigrating, or patronizing those whom they cannot convince
of their dogmatic views.The more committed
they are, the less they can comprehend non-believers’ refusal to accept their
religious beliefs and their adverse reactions to their “compassion.”Fundamentalists do not, probably cannot, credit
others with religious integrity or worthy faiths.Indeed, when I remarked that Hooks implied
the superiority of his religion and its believers to all other religions and
their believers, he did not deny it.When
he described his motivation as “compassion” for the souls of others who, by
refusing to disavow their beliefs, face fiery damnation, he double-downed on
the arrogance which repels non-fundamentalists.

Had they been present, those for whom Hooks has “compassion”
might have asked four questions.Why do you
insult us and our faiths?Why do you
presume to feel “compassion” for us?Why
do you care about our souls?Have not
Christian leaders used “compassion” to sanction cruelty, killing, and conflict
involving those not accepting beliefs sanctioned by church dogma but adhering
to faiths which those church leaders deem imperfect and inferior?

The truest of True Believers take their
self-righteousness and certitude to extremes.They persuade themselves that “compassion” requires cruelty, killing, or
conflict to save the souls of those presumably damned by false beliefs to the
infinite and eternal pains of Hell fires.They believe that “compassion” for individuals justifies harsh but
finite and temporary means—think: the rack or strappado—to convert
non-believers.Thus, the religiously
motivated persecutions, murders, or forced exiles of Jews during the medieval
and modern periods, notably under the Inquisition.They believe that “compassion” on a far larger
scale justifies the force of arms.Thus,
campaigns of conquest against and conversion of pagans in the Christian West, crusades
against heretic communities or Islamic countries, conquests and conversions by Catholic
conquistadors in the Western Hemisphere, conflicts between Catholic and
Protestant states, and civil wars between Catholics and Protestants.In the history of Christianity, in the name
of the God of Love and the Prince of Peace, Christian extremists have betrayed the
baby born at Christmas, by their resort to the violence of perverted
“compassion.”

How to converse with those in thrall to a
pathological, potentially dangerous rhetoric?
My answer: take religion seriously, be informed, stay engaged, be
courteous, listen attentively, talk respectfully, and pray for a truly
“reasonable dialogue” to prevail.

1 comment:

Well put, Michael. Even when you try to get at the basis for belief, you run into a mode of thinking that makes the discussion a cul-de-sac. As you point out, belief becomes a precondition for discussion, which means there is no assumption which is common to both parties. In such cases--which is what I meant by "well put"--creating the right tone is the best approach. Which is what you do, all the while hoping that your opponent will restrain his "compassion" for you.

About Me

In my past or present life:
• Independent consultant (mainly, defense, energy, environment) to private- and public-sector clients • Full- or part-time teacher for 45 years in private and public, coed and single-sex, secondary schools, community colleges, and four-year universities
• Civic activist mainly in public education, columnist, and letter writer
• Published scholar (specialty: Shakespeare), with four degrees, including a master's in secondary education and a doctorate in English literature
• Army officer (Intelligence) and Vietnam veteran
• NAACP Life member since 1968 and feminist since before the movement
• left-leaning Independent once a Yellow-Dog Democrat
• Two children and three step-children
• Master of three dogs and servant to three cats